CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home managed infection risks, including visitor checks, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing and vaccinations. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Woodlands was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people living at the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing visitors and admissions safely, and following shielding and social distancing rules. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had a separate room near the front door for visits. Staff supported residents to understand testing, protective equipment and vaccination. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating.
Infection control
The home was following government COVID-19 guidance and had checks for visitors to reduce infection risks.
“Woodlands ensured current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were being followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home.” from the report
Safer visiting
A designated visiting room near the entrance meant visitors did not need to go fully into the home.
“Woodlands had set up a designated room for residents to meet visitors, the room was close to front door so visitors did not have to fully enter the home.” from the report
Supporting residents
Staff helped residents understand measures such as regular testing, protective equipment and vaccination.
“Woodlands engaged with their residents to ensure they understood the need to comply with measures to minimise the risk of infection to themselves and others.” from the report
Links with the GP practice
The home reported good links with its local GP practice, which had provided COVID-19 vaccinations to residents.
“Woodlands told us that they had good links with their local GP practice who had provided COVID-19 vaccinations to residents at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check visitors and manage the risk of infection?
- 02Is the designated visiting room still used, and how are visits arranged now?
- 03How do you support residents with testing, personal protective equipment and vaccination decisions?
- 04What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and what measures are in place to prevent them affecting residents?
- 05How do you arrange testing and vaccination for residents and staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures, so the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found caring, active support, but safety controls needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 6 November 2018. One inspector spoke with people, staff, the manager and a relative. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, incidents and quality checks.
Overall, the home was rated Good. Caring, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People were supported by staff who knew them well, encouraged independence and helped them take part in activities and community life.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection. Inspectors found one safety risk had not been properly identified or managed. They also found emergency equipment had not been monitored or maintained. The manager said these issues would be investigated and fixed after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff. Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Throughout the inspection visit we saw people approach staff at ease and talked freely with them in a relaxed conversation style.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make their own drinks, prepare food and access the community where it was safe. The home supported people to achieve greater independence over time.
“People had been supported to maintain their independence through all aspects of their care.” from the report
Active lives
People took part in activities they enjoyed and were supported to be part of the local community, including college and community groups.
“People had a full and active life and were encouraged to be part of the local community.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff giving medicines had training and competency checks. Medicines were stored safely and systems checked that they were given as prescribed.
“All staff responsible for administering medicines were required to undertake training in safe medication administration and to have their competency tested before they were allowed to administer medicines.” from the report
A safety risk was missed
seriousInspectors found a situation that could have harmed people, visitors or staff. The home had not fully assessed the risk or put measures in place to prevent it happening again.
“Our inspection identified a concern that had not been identified by the service and had put people, visitors and staff at potential risk of harm.” from the report
Emergency equipment checks
needs fixingOne piece of equipment needed in an emergency had not been monitored or maintained. The manager later provided evidence that a system had been put in place to correct this.
“However, we found that one piece of equipment to be used in an emergency situation had not been monitored or maintained.” from the report
- 01What was the safety incident that inspectors said had not been properly identified or managed?
- 02What changes have been made to reduce the risk of the same event happening again?
- 03How often is emergency equipment checked now, and who records those checks?
- 04How are people's individual risks reviewed after an incident or change in their mental health?
- 05How will the home make sure required notifications about restrictions on care are sent on time?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five key questions; the overall rating stayed Good, while the Safe rating changed from Good at the 7 June 2016 inspection to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Woodlands
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.